High Court Declines to Intervene in Cross-State Surrogacy and Parentage Dispute

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to intervene in a contentious custody dispute between a California couple and the surrogate who carried their child, who was born last month with a critical heart condition. Justice Elena Kagan, responsible for emergency appeals from the region, rejected the appeal filed by surrogate McKenna West, which sought to block a California court order recognizing Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar as the child’s legal parents.

The conflict originated from a surrogacy agreement that permitted the intended parents to request an abortion if fetal abnormalities were detected. West, an Alaska resident, became pregnant in December. However, during a 20-week anatomy scan in April, doctors diagnosed the fetus with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a life-threatening defect that impedes normal blood flow through the heart, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Following the diagnosis, Ahmed and Gilkar asked West to terminate the pregnancy. West refused and traveled to Texas, where state law prohibits abortions after approximately six weeks. She gave birth last month to a boy she calls Gabriel, while the California couple has named him Rumi.

Prior to the birth, the couple secured a ruling from a California court confirming their parentage. Subsequently, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened, obtaining a court order mandating that the hospital provide life-saving medical treatment to the infant. Paxton has since withdrawn from the case. The baby underwent a Norwood procedure, typically the first of three surgeries required for infants with this condition, as noted by the CDC. A Texas court further determined that Ahmed and Gilkar, rather than West, hold the authority to make medical decisions for the child.

In her appeal to the Supreme Court, West argued that the couple is attempting to obstruct essential care and warned that she would be denied her right to protect the baby’s life without relief. Her legal team asserted that under Texas law, West would likely be considered the child’s rightful mother because she gave birth to him there.

Conversely, attorneys for Ahmed and Gilkar emphasized that they have been consistently providing for the infant’s medical needs. In filings, they stated the couple has remained at the pediatric intensive care unit around the clock, directing the medical team’s care. They argued that Supreme Court intervention would create confusion regarding medical decision-making and contended that emergency relief was unnecessary because the couple is already facilitating the critical treatment West is advocating for.